Pouty Liz pesters perky Brummer

“Foul!”, cries the chicken as the Colonel approaches…

News with intent!

Your advertising is only as good as the people who see it – repeatedly! You want to do business with O!O readers – people with money and control of corporate budgets. Click here

By: TwitterButtons.com

Click here for an invitation to subscribe to urbi

Oudtshoorn. 22 October 2012. 10h20. The DA, the party mostly supported by people who believe, to a greater or lesser extent, that South Africa is headed for failed nation status under the ANC, is petulantly bemoaning Johann Brummer’s energetic campaigning in Bitou Ward 2.

This email from DA Bitou Constituency Chairperson (“Obo the DA in Bitou” no less, she states) Liz Mundell:

It has come to our attention that many of you, the voters in Ward 2, have received an email from Johann Brummer regarding his intention to stand as an Independent Candidate in the forthcoming By-Election in Ward 2 and containing incorrect allegations against the DA.

It appears that the DA Ward 2 database is being used by Johann Brummer to contact you. He is no longer a member of the DA and is not entitled to make use of it.

We apologise for this.

It is highly probable that he will continue to misuse our data base to further his campaign. Please may we request that you disregard all e-mail and sms communications from him.

O!O can assure Ms Mundell that the database used by the Brummer campaign is not the old DA one; it is an updated, current one.

Pulreaze, Liz; get a political purpose!

Click here to receive updates.

Advertise on O!O

Click here to return to the title page.


42 thoughts on “Pouty Liz pesters perky Brummer

  1. Ja nee Brummer ek dink jy moet maar gaan le. Dit is een ding om beweringe te maak en dit is heeltemal ‘n ander ding om dit te bewys. Gaan geniet jou sabatical en vind jouself jy het ‘n monster geword die afgelope 12 jaar kyk net in jou spieel hoe lyk jy.

  2. I am glad you referred to the Law of Evidence Mr. Brummer. Also what the purpose of an affidavit is. You will then understand all too well, that an affidavit is not proof. That the affidavit ONLY consists of averments, which need to be proven. The documentary “proof” attached to the affidavit is off course then subject to contention and can be disproved. That is why the opposing party can reply to the affidavit and provide contradictory evidence. The courts will then give weight to all the evidence and make a decision. Your affidavit (which I just quickly read before it disappeared from O!O) basically was to the effect that Mr. Mills said in his invoice he read 1500 pages, but you only saw 370 pages which was sent to Scope. This might be so, but have you considered that perhaps he did in fact read 1500 pages, but that not all of those were sent to Scopa because maybe not all of them were relevant? I am speculating, but if that is the case, then your “proof” is false. If the question is whether it is fair to charge R75,00 per page… Well then, that is a completely different matter altogether, and the question is easily answerable. Was that agreed upon between the service provider and the client? If so, then, once again, your proof is gone. But, I still look forward to seeing the proof YOU tendered to publish – I do not think it is necessary for me to inspect it at your place. (I’m not really that into it). Maybe we must just wait until the process has tun its course. If the Law Society, or SAPS, or an SIU or someone considers your version, investigates and then considers Mr. Mills’ version, it will be proven one way or another. Until then, I think all you have is speculation formed by perception.

  3. @ Sceptic. I see a piece of it is not there. I’ll speak to Drewan to try and fix it was in Plett all day and on his way back to ODN. nothing sinister. It is definitely not retracted. It is an affidavit and you clearly do not understand the purpose of an affidavit. The factual proof is the documentary evidence attached to the affidavit and the affidavit merely serves to tie all the factual evidence together. You will have to come and see the factual proof for yourself. Come and see me any time (082 846 0792) I have no idea whether or not this is one of the complaints against Mr Mills at the Law Society. If they did find that he over reached it would not constitute proof, but actual guilt.

    When? What matter? And who are these multiple judges you refer to?

    @Peter. Ja, dit is by die owerhede. Waar presies weet ek nie. Die datum, Maart 2012 is onderaan, maar dit wys ongelukking nie. Hopelik kan Drewan did regmaak. Ek dink die ding was te groot om te pos. Ja dit is, en ja, dit kan jy sien uit die eedsverklaring.

    Ek het dit ook gepos ter illustrasie van hoe sekere van onse broeder en suster “bloggers” of “posters” dubbele standaarde toepas. Heeltemal bereid om ongesubstansieerde stories, donker skimpe, wilde aantuigings ens vir die waarheid te aanvaar en te verkondig. Hulle is selfs bereid om in totale onkundigheid en sonder enige persoonlike kennis op hierdie onwaarhede uit te brei en te vergroot, solank dit hulle doel pas of gerig is teen iemand waarvan hulle nie hou nie. En dan skielik, wanneer dit nie pas nie en te naby aan die huis slaan, dan pas hulle skielik baie anderse standaarde toe en kyk krities na wat gese of gewys word en fabriseer dan selfs, soos jy maak, ander leuens en verdraaings om dit te probeer goedpraat of wegpraat.

    Vir die persoon wat beweer het ander mense steel bande by die munisipaliteit en verkoop dit dan aan my teen R500, dien dit ook die doel om te wys hoe ‘n mens moet maak as jy van so iets bewus word. Kry jou feite agtermekaar en gaan le die eedsverklaring af om die saak aanhangig te maak.

    @Sceptic. Ja, reported as compelled to by law. It was reported in March 2012 only, when I had obtained sufficient hard documentary evidence to convince myself that there was sufficient reason to compel me to report. It is not a simple matter, so in my experience, it will still be a considerable time before an investigation is completed. I also understand that a number of matters, and I do not know the details, are to be handed to an SIU yet to be established. Maybe this is one of those and that may then explain the delay. No, as I said in my post there has been no finding of any sort in this matter. No, the proof is not just opinions and the proof is in the documentary evidence which formed the basis for the affidavit referred to and the copies of the documentation attached as annexures to the affidavit. Because the law of evidence and common sense says so.

    You’re welcome to come and have a look and I am happy to spend some time going through it with you. Just give me some advanced warning so I can get my copies of the annexures out. Bring Hardy with so he can verify for you that he did in fact submit the accounts referred to.

    I made the challenge in the sure knowledge that Hardy would not do the honourable thing and it is a given that he will renege.

  4. Wait, now I am seriously dumbfounded. A little while ago there was a post above from Mr. Johan Brummer, the contents of which was his affidavit in support of his complaint to (I suppose) the SAPD against Mr. Mills. Now, this post is gone, missing, deleted? Retracted? Because I did read a bit about 1500 pages at R75,00 and wanted to say something, but, I can’t anymore, cause the post is not here any longer. In any event, the post did not constitute and proof by the largest of imaginations. It was an affidavit, deposed to by e person whose affidavits have been found, uhm how shall I put his delicately, untruthful, by certain judges of the High Court before. (See Brummer vs. Mvimbi). But, alas, if there is any factual proof of wrongdoing, I wait with baited breath to see it. No one sided affidavit’s will do. I assume this was also complained to the Law Society. Maybe they have found Mr. Mills guilty of over reaching? That would constitute proof.

    O!O – what gives? Why was Mr. Brummer’s post of his affidavit removed?

  5. So wat nou? Ek wil ook graag weet of jy nou alreeds die aangeleentheid maak by die SAPD aanhangig gemaak het? Indien wel, wanneer? Indien, hoekom nie? Hierdie is ernstige aantuigings meneer ek hoop jy het jou storie agtermekaar!

  6. OK, so I think I get it. Shall I assume that you have already reported? As you are compelled by law to do. If that is the case, what was the result of the report and assumed subsequent investigation? Was it found by some governing body or the SIU or whoever that Mr. Mills over reached? Or is the proof just opinions? If not, why not?

    OK, I’ll just wait to see the proof then. More questions may follow after that.

  7. @Sceptic. Your patience has been rewarded. As you will see, I was compelled by law to report it, which, I complied with once I had sufficient evidence of what had been going on. The affidavit is an allegation, made under oath, supported by documentary proof compiled after I became aware of a possible problem. It took a long time to do and was carefully done. The police must now take it further, investigate the matter verify documents, interview people etc. My statutory obligation ended when I reported the matter and I remain out of it until I am called to clarify points and/or to testify if the matter goes to court. It is very important to note. Although the voluminous documentary evidence as summed up in the affidavit shows, on the face of it, that there was indeed over reaching on the part of Mr Mills he remains innocent until a court finds him guilty and even then only becomes guilty when he has exhausted all avenues of appeal.

    Mr Mills accepted that I publish it in the interests of our side bet. Aside from that I did not have any reason nor desire to publish it. He agreed to roll the dice.



    I, Johann Wichardt Greyling Brummer, an adult male, ID 550331 5162 08 9, resident at 2 Marrakesh Flats, Pachena Point Drive, Plettenberg Bay, hereby make oath and say that:

    1. I am a Councillor serving on the Bitou Local Municipality’s Council.
    2. I have been a councillor since December 2000.
    3. I currently also serve as a member of the Mayoral Committee.
    4. I am, by definition of section 1(xxiv) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, Act 12 of 2004, a “public officer.”
    5. In my capacity as a “public officer” I am also by definition of section 34(4)(c) a “person of authority.”
    6. As a person of authority I am obliged, in terms of section 34(1)(b) of the Act, to report any knowledge or suspicion of inter alia fraud, forgery and uttering a forged document to a police official.
    7. For the above reasons I have locus standi to make this affidavit and request that the issues I report hereby be further and fully investigated.
    8. The facts deposed herein are to the best of my knowledge true and correct and fall within my personal knowledge, unless stated to the contrary or otherwise apparent from the context.
    9. In 2010 Bitou Municipality, specifically the then Mayor, Lulama Mvimbi, the then Municipal Manager, Lonwabo Ngoqo, and the then Chief Financial Officer, Deon Lott were summoned by the Western Cape Provincial Standing Committee On Public Accounts, to appear before it to account for irregular expenditure inter alia regarding the lease of a mayoral limousine.
    10. They refused to attend and instead instructed attorney Mills purporting to be in the employ of Mills and Lombard attorneys to oppose the subpoenas issued against them by SCOPA.
    11. In the end it was agreed between the parties that Bitou Municipality would submit the relevant documentation to SCOPA for their perusal.
    12. On 27 July 2010 under cover of a letter (Annexure HM 1 ) he submitted replies prepared by Lott (Annexure HM 2 [4 pages] ) to SCOPA on certain questions together with supporting documents (Annexure HM 3 [370 pages] ) as supplied by Lott.
    13. It is these documents (HM 3) that Mills appears to have used as a vehicle to defraud the Bitou Municipality.
    14. On 12 August 2010, Mills submitted a statement of account (Annexure HM 4 ) in the amount of R149 112.00 to the Bitou Municipality.
    15. The account raises 5 charges, of which the relevant charge is listed under item 3: “Perusal of documentation submitted to Scopa and considering same (1500 pages @ R75.00pp)” (Emphasis added.) This is a clear and unambiguous reference to annexure HM 3.
    16. I first obtained sight of the statement of account a few weeks ago.
    17. Having myself read the documentation HM 3 and commented thereon on 1 September 2010, the amount of 1500 pages struck me as suspiciously high.
    18. I arranged to obtain the original documents from Scopa in order to verify my suspicion.

    19. I duly received the documentation last week and counted the pages.
    20. A certified copy of these documents is attached as Annexure HM 3.
    21. The annexures as submitted by Mills to Scopa and referred to in his statement of account HM 4 amounted to 370 pages.
    22. Assuming that he also read Lott’s 4 page submission HM 2 he would have read 374 pages in total.
    23. As an attorney Mills spends much of his time working with bundles of documents and has enough experience to be able to tell at a glance roughly, say within 10%, how many pages a file contains. It is highly unlikely that a person of his experience could honestly mistake 370 pages for 1500 pages, especially where they all fit neatly and easily into a standard Lever Arch file. One would also expect that in an instance such as this where a page is “worth” R75 an effort to actually make an accurate count of the pages would have been made.
    24. Clearly no such effort was made and I submit that Mills knowingly and deliberately fraudulently overstated the number of pages to benefit himself at the expense of his client, the Bitou Municipality.
    25. The payment requisition (Annexure HM 5) dd 13 August 2010 was approved by the then Manager Legal Services, Andrew Seroadi, and the then MM, Lonwabo Ngoqo.
    26. The then CFO, Deon Lott certified thereon that there were sufficient funds available in the account to make the payment.
    27. All three the above were intimately involved and would have had the same knowledge as I had, that the file contained far less than 1500 pages. This is especially so in the case of Lott who had compiled the file of documents.
    28. On the strength of HM 5 an official order (Annexure HM 6) was then created by the Supply Chain Manager on 9 September 2010.
    29. Electronic payment in the amount of R178 465.67 (which included the R149 112.00 as per Mill’s statement of account HM 4 was effected on 17 September 2010. (Annexure HM 7)
    30. In scrutinising the statements of account from Mills in this matter there appear, in the light of the above, to be several other charges which appear sufficiently suspicious to warrant reporting in terms of section 34(1)(b) of Act 12 of 2004.
    31. In the matter between Bitou Municipality (Mvimbi, Ngoqo and Lott) and Scopa to which the above relates Mills rendered a total of 6 statements of account in the total amount of R344 888.07. (See Annexure HM 8. [ Item 13 thereof] )
    32. This appears to be an inordinately large bill considering the relative simplicity of the matter and the absence of litigation.
    33. On 15 June 2010 Mills rendered his first account in the matter in an amount of R13 794.00. (Annexure HM 9).
    34. Mills charges as follows: “All inclusive fee of taking instructions, consulting with client, perusal of documentation, legal research and drafting opinion (11 hours)”
    R 12 100.00 (+VAT) (Emphasis added)
    35. On its own this raises no suspicion, but when viewed together with the statement of account HM 4 where under item 1 thereof a charge of R 13 200 is raised “Legal research (12hours)” (Emphasis added)
    36. On that same statement of account, HM 4 a further charge of R 4 400 is raised under item 2 : “Correspondence, telephonic communications, consultations and other attendances (4hours)”
    37. This is an incredible amount of legal work being charged for.
    38. The payment requisition (Annexure HM 10) dd 25 June 2010 was approved by the then Manager Legal Services, Andrew Seroadi, and the then MM, Lonwabo Ngoqo.
    39. On the strength of HM 10 an official order (Annexure HM 11) was then created by the Supply Chain Manager on 29 June 2010.
    40. Electronic payment in the amount of R38 833.69 (which included the R13 794.00 as per Mill’s statement of account HM 9.) was effected on 1 July 2010.
    (Annexure HM 12)
    41. On 11 October 2010 Mills submits a further statement of account in the amount of R126 847.00 in this matter. (Annexure HM 13)
    42. Item 5 of this account is for unspecified “Postage and petties” in an amount of
    R 2500.00.
    43. Below that he charges an additional amount of R 115.00 attaching an invoice in support for the courier fees for HM 3 to Cape Town. (Annexure HM 14)
    44. In the absence of a specified invoice as is normal for attorney’s accounts but which Mills apparently does not do, one must question the amount of R115 in courier fees set against the R2500 in postage and petties also charged.
    45. Payment requisition was once again approved by Seroadi and Ngoqo. (Annexure HM 15) dd 25 October 2010.
    46. Payment was made on 8 November 2010 in an amount of R 393 305.70 which amount included the R 126 847.00 (HM 13) in this matter. (Annexure HM 16)
    47. On 7 February 2011 Mills submits yet another account in this matter, this time in an amount of R12 711.00 charging for yet more research etc. (Annexure HM 17)
    48. While there is nothing overtly suspicious in this account, a pattern of heavy charging for a simple matter is emerging.
    49. Between statements of account HM 13 and HM 17, it shows that he has involved 2 Senior Council and a junior, Ismail Jamie SC, Adv W Vermeulen SC and Adv Elsa van Huyssteen in this simple matter. It is interesting to note that while he attached supporting accounts from Adv Jamie and Van Huysteen to HM 13, no supporting accounts were attached to HM 17.
    50. Payment requisition was once again approved by Seroadi and Ngoqo. (Annexure HM 18) dd 14 February 2011.
    51. An official order Annexure HM 19 was generated on 2 March 2011.
    52. Payment was made on 18 March 2011 in an amount of R 257 118.00 which amount included the R 12 711.00 (HM 17) in this matter. (Annexure HM 20)
    53. On 14 March 2011 Mills submits a further account in this matter in the amount of
    R 36 427.07. (Annexure HM 21)
    54. An amount of R 22 000 is inter alia for Telephonic communications with advocates yet strangely the advocates themselves do not seem to have submitted their accounts for the consultations – none are attached to support the account as would normally be the case. (Annexure HM 21)
    55. An item at the bottom of the account HM 21 “ENS (see attached invoice)” raises an amount of R 10 774.07.
    56. This charge is in fact supported by 3 tax invoices from the law firm Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs (ENS) in Cape Town.
    57. The first invoice in an amount of R 5 000.00 is a “deposit invoice” dated 14 September 2010. (Annexure HM 22)
    58. The second invoice in an amount of R 2 184.56 relates mostly to telephone calls, photocopying and general clerical work. Dated 30 September 2010
    (Annexure HM 23)
    59. The third invoice in an amount of R 3 589.51 relates mostly to court and having papers served on the State Advocate. Dated 30 November 2010.
    (Annexure HM 24)
    60. At first glance all seems in order with the above, however, if one has regard for the fact that Mills has charged and received payment for a deposit of R5000 to ENS (HM 22) and charged and received payment for a further two invoices from ENS (HM 23 and HM 24) in an amount of R 5 774.07. A total payment of R10 774.07 on 19 April 2011, all is not in order.
    61. Clearly the municipality should have paid only R 5 774.07 and the R 5000.00 deposit should have been paid back by now 10 months later. (1 March 2012) This has not been done.
    62. Payment requisition was once again approved by Seroadi and Ngoqo. (Annexure HM 25) dd 16 March 2011.
    63. Payment was made on 19 April 2011 in an amount of R 415 701.71 which amount included the R 36 424.07 (HM 21) in this matter. (Annexure HM 26)
    64. Apparently the final account in this matter received from Mills was in an amount of R 6000.00 dated 25 July 2011, for an account submitted by Adv Van Huyssteen in that same amount. (Annexure HM 27)
    65. The account was supported by an invoice from Adv Van Huyssteen strangely dated 2 August 2011. (Annexure HM 28)
    66. It is apparent from the above that Mills has perpetrated fraud against the Bitou Municipality and its citizens.
    67. It would have been impossible for him to have done so without the collusion of both the Manager: Legal Services, Andrew Seroadi and the Municipal Manager, Lonwabo Ngoqo, who approved the fraudulently claimed payments. I suspect all shared in the spoils.



    I certify that:

    1. The deponent acknowledged to me that:
    1.1 He knows and understands the contents of his declaration;
    1.2 He has no objection to taking the prescribed oath;
    1.3 He considers the prescribed oath to be binding on his conscience;
    2. The deponent thereafter auutered the words, “ I swear that the contents of this declaration are true, so help me God”;
    3. The deponent signed this declaration in my presence at the address set out hereunder on this..1st day of March 2012.

  8. @Sceptic. Sorry. I have been a bit busy with other things, otherwise I would have posted it already. I don’t quite know how to get the stuff onto the post but I’m going to give it a bash and if it does not work properly OO will have to clean up the possible mess later.not bluffing and nothing sinister.

    I quoted Thuli because it supports the point you made that as a person who holds/held/asks to hold entrusted power I MUST be questioned and that it is your right to ask the questions and my duty to reply.

    As to the timing of the duty to report and the publication of the info at my disposal, they are two quite different things. The one I am compelled to do by law within a certain time frame and the other I do have some discretion as to when and how I do it.

    @Peter. The Thuli Madonsela quote above says it all.

    @Hardy. Confused is the very last thing you can be accused of. You know exactly what is good for Hardy Mills and will pursue that relentlessly.

    I’m going to try to do this posting thing now.

  9. Good morning to you to Pletty, sorry Mr.Brummer. I’m a bit confused, am I now supposed to be DA or ANC? Earlier in this post you said “you’re doing a pretty fine job of diverting attention from Pouty Liz’s little blapsie for the DA. A quid pro quo for the favours that you got Memory to do for you?” Think carefully Mr. Brummer; if you answer “both” that will make me neutral now wouldn’t it? Miskien moet jy so bietjie slaap probeer inkry voor jou skyfievertoning vannaand?

  10. Oh come on Mr Brummer who do you think you are fooling here? Please don’t blame your obvious shortcomings in life on other people. When people question your behaviour as a public representative its comes with the territory, is n’t it so Mr Brummer? You will have to deal with these isues one way or another.

  11. Mr. Brummer, then why not shoot? Why shout BANG! at Mr. Mills? why hide these apparent documents which will prove over reaching? Can we assume that you are bluffing? Or is it something more sinister as I mentioned earlier. Are you willing to passively accept it, because blowing the whistle has no personal or professional benefit for you?

    I honestly also do not understand your reference to Tuli Modensela, or the applicability of her quote. The fact remains, it is expected of public officials to blow the whistle WHEN the become aware of irregularities, not at the opportune time when they can benefit from doing so. I for one, did not make any malicious statements about you on this thread. You in fact tendered a piece of information, that you had proof of ill-doings by your adversary and the Bitou Municipality which cost the ratepayers money, and you chose to keep that confidential. I just asked you to show your true colours and act with the fidelity that is expected of public officers.

  12. Ou Piet! Dit IS ernstige sake wat ons mee besig is. Ons is met ernstige sake besig wat die lewens en welvaart van baie mense raak. Ons dorp is in die gemors wat hy is omdat politieke partye, DA, ANC en COPE, blykbaar nog nie tot hierdie besef gekom het nie, en daar games gespeel word met die toekoms van die dorp en sy mense vir, of party politieke gewin of persoonlike gewin, of albei. Dit is ERNSTIG.

    Dit beteken egter nie dat ek en Hardy nie ‘n bietjie ligte vermaak daaruit kan put nie, solank ons nie met die dorp se geld en toekoms dobbel nie.

    Gaan lees ‘n bietjie mooi al die posts en jy sal sien die verdagmakery, verdraaings, wilde aantuigings, donker skimpe, leuens ens kom almal van een kant. En dit kom nie van my kant af nie.

    Staan vir ‘n oomblikkie stil en dink. Al hierdie sogenaamde geraamtes waarna jy verwys…As dit nou so was soos jy se, sou hulle lankal in technicolor uitgerol en gebruik gewees het. Dit sou nie net by skimpe gebly het nie.

    Hardy probeer al baie jare baie hard met al die resources tot sy beskikking om my en die DA te benadeel.(Hou maar ‘n ogie oop vir wat ek later op aandrang van Selina moet post.) Sy en die ANC se blog, JEF, is ‘n sprekende voorbeeld daarvan. Die leuens, halwe waarhede, skimpe en verdraaings waarmee jy, Selina en andere vir die waarheid mee te koop loop se oorsprong le almal in JEF waar julle dieselfde leuens onder mekaar versprei, ondenkend aanvaar as die waarheid, wild oor bespiegel en lustig op uitbrei en al wilder en wilder aanlas. Verdagmaking op sy beste en Hardy se stock in trade.
    Hy lei vir julle aan julle neuse rond en julle besef dit nie eens nie.

    Regte move van Francois om door-to-door te doen. Ons weet almal dit is ‘n belangrike en onmisbare deel van die werk.

    Dit is ‘n koue harde feit dat Francois homself ge assosieer het met Hardy, en by extension met jou, en Selina en Hardy se ander meelopers, en ja, selfs die ANC deur sy assosiasie met JEF. You said it, not me. Dit is miskien net persepsies, maar in die politiek en noodwendig die publieke oog waar hy hom nou bevind, moet ‘n mens bewus wees dat ‘n persepsie dikwels deur die publiek vir die waarheid gevat word. Maar ‘n mens kan jou altyd distansieer van sulke mense. Hy het dit nog nie gedoen nie.

    Vat nou maar vir jou. Die eerste kort sinnetjie in jou post. Jy maak donkere skimpe van wat jy probeer voorhou as duistere doenighede by Monkeyland waarby jy dan probeer insinueer ek kwansuis by betrokke sou wees of kennis van sou dra. Jy doen dit duidelik nie om my op te bou nie, jy doen dit duidelik om ‘n assosiasie te probeer skep tussen my en Monkeyland en denkbeeldige aktiewiteite waarvan jy persoonlik geen kennis kan dra nie maar wat aan jou verkoop is as feite deur oneerlike mense wat self nie kan weet waarvan hulle praat nie. Jy doen dit definitief nie om opbouend te wees of om enigsins by te dra tot ‘n sinvolle debat nie.

    Jy doen dit om my te probeer verdagmaak en so te benadeel. En die heel eerste ding wat jy doen, is om my, totaal sonder gronde, te beskuldig dat ek dit doen waarmee jy jou gaan besighou.. Ou taktiek daardie een maar die wat die spel verstaan laat hulle nie daardeur flous nie, maar ek gee toe dit is ‘n wonderlike en effektiewe manier om die aandag af te lei van juis dit waarmee jy self besig is. (Dink maar ann Zuma se uitlatings oor korrupsie. Hy praat teen dit waarmee hy besig is)
    Jy is ‘n gewillige stompvoorwerp vir Francois en hy aanvaar dit want dit bevoordeel hom in wat hy probeer bereik onder lyding van Hardy. Intussen loop hy vroom van deur to deur. Hy besef dalk nie eens wat werklik besig is om om hom aan te gaan nie en wat jy en sy ander assosiate in sy naam mee besig is nie. Hopelik stem hy nie daarmee saam nie?

    Oor een ding is jy egter baie reg, Francois het definitief op hierdie stadium nog Hardy (en die en dit wat hy met hom saambring), nog die ANC in sy lewe nodig nie.

    Ek is seker sy ouma het vir hom gemaan, “Meng jou met die semels en die varke vreet jou op.” Hy moes geluister het.

    So, soos jy en Hardy vir ons wys, werk verdagmaking deur assosiasies en persepsies . Dit is ‘n hit-and-miss taktiek waaroor jy geen beheer het nie, en dit kan lelik op jou backfire.

    Ons weet ook almal dat ware feite en harde bewyse die heel sterkste en sekerste manier is om die waarheid te bereik en dit is net in gevalle waar daar nie so iets konkreet of waar bestaan nie wat mense soos jy dan maar moet terugval op verdagmakery. As jy iets het om mee te skiet skree jy nie BANG! en hoop die ou skrik hom dood nie, jy skiet met die regte ding.

    Skree julle maar BANG ek skrik nie vir koue patats nie.

  13. Brummer ons weet jy wil nou vir Geldenhuys verdag maak deur hom met Hardy en by extention met die ANC te assosieer ons ken daai truuks! Francois het nie vir Mills of die ANC nodig nie. Hier gaan dit oor integriteit, bekwaamheid, eerlikheid en onafhankliheid en eks van mening dat Geldenhuys oor hierdie eienskappe beskik. Van jou weet ek hopeloos te veel Mnr Brummer en sal nie op hierdie stadium jou karakter verder openbaar nie, jy weet presies waarvan ek praat!

  14. Ag kom nou Brummer moenie so ernstig raak nie jy weet mos wat gebeur cdaar by Monkeyland. Jys glad nie ‘n engel nie my ou. Daars baie geraamtes in die kas wat nou hulle koppe gaan uitsteek. Dit sal nou nie baat om vir ou Mills aan te vat nie. As jy wil weet waar Geldenhuys is moet jy hom maar bel en vra want ek het hom vanoggend gesien door-to door doen in wyk 2. Jy weet mos die oumense hou nie baie van die ipads nie.

  15. Take your time, judging by the way the campaign is unravelling I sense that you will have plenty.

  16. @Colin Bell. Jeepers! That is going to take some thought to understand.

  17. @ Selina. Name calling? Really? I deliberately don’t even use your whole pseudonym becuase I consider it to be in bad taste and has racist and sexist conotations for many people who find it a hurtful word. It is not clever nor cute, simply in bad taste. But that is just my opinion.

    I do not gratuitously attack people. I say what must be said. We take each other on voluntarily in this forum and if we want to get in the ring and hand out punches we must also be prepared to absorb them. I defend myself and make no wxcuses for that.

    Dit is wat ek my ook afvra. Hardy hol rond en gaan tekere, spartel en spook, maar van sy kandidaat hoor mens niks. Hardy is doing all the running saam sy gewone meelopers. Waars die eintlike kandidaat? Almal vra my en ek weet nie. Maar ons ken mos maar vir Hardy so. Hy manipuleer dinge van agter die skerms en doen lustig mee maar sorg dat hy nooit self iets op die tafel nie.

    Ek het hom geensins ‘n ultimatum gestel nie. Ek is in geen posisie om dit te kan doen nie. Ek het hom net gevra dat hy ook vir ‘n verandering ietsie op die spel te sit. Hy kon nee gese het, maar hy het vrywilliglik ingewillig. Nou waag hy ook iets en dit maak dit baie interesanter en rewarding vir hom wat al die harde vuilwerk moet doen.

  18. Mr Baird, what a motley crew you now have on board the the good ship Oudtshoorn Online – that refuge of the drowning (and the drowned).
    Any dreams of sailing into the safe waters of The Independent Isles must seem a mirage now that the true colours of these unlikely shipmates are plain for all to see. For this however we must be truly thankful.
    Is there any value in continuing with this charade tomorrow? What now for the integrity of an Independent candidate? What have you created!
    My apologies for continuing the nautical analogy but Coleridge summed it up beautifully in his Rime of the Ancient Mariner:

    He went like one that hath been stunned
    And is of sense forlorned
    A sadder and a wiser man
    He rose the morrow morn

  19. Selina, die verslag is 22 bladsye en 6Mb. Ek het gewoon nie tans die tyd om dit te verwerk nie; ek sal sodra ek tyd het.

  20. Staan Hardy Mills ook dan nou as ‘n kandidaat. Verskoon my onkunde maar Brommer se ultimatim laat my onder die indruk dat Hardy nou ook staan. Ai die Bantu education

  21. Ai toggie. Johan stel nie teleur nie. Name calling en mense aanval as hulle hom bevraagteken….

    O vader en feetjies die redakteur mag dalk eleur gesteld wees want hier hou hy toe Johan voor as ‘n politikus wat antwoord as hy gevra word.

    So terloops Drewan ons wag nog vir die dokumentasie wat jy gister al in jou besit gehad het en sou deel. Johan se deklarasie sal ook welkom wees soos belowe gister.

  22. @Hardy Mills. Whatever.

    @Corruption Killer. You could be right.

    @Peter. Dis wat Hardy probeer bewerstellig en wil he jy moet glo. Ek ken Francois van geen kant nie en het hom nog net een keer ontmoet vir ‘n relatief kort tydtjie. Hy het nie veel gese nie en ons het nou nie eintlik kans gekry om mekaar te leer ken nie. My indruk van hom was dieselfde wat jy nou se. Die “flat” en die “hou vrou”… aai, man, hoe lekker verdraai jy nou die feite om jou vooroordeel te pas. Laat kom tog maar die mistastings en onwaarhede en vertoon maar jou onkunde en vooroordeel.

  23. So Brummer you are now indirectly confirming that you are indeed Pletty? J ajong jy sal nooit kan ophou met jou ou dirty tricks nie. En vir jou informasie , Francois is ‘n eerlike en opregte mens nie soos jy wat jou hou vrou se flat aan ou Thysie verhuur het en die huurgeld by die munisipaliteit geeis het nie. Ja ons weet van vele meer ek later uitbrei.

  24. I don’t think it’s not about diverting attention. The simple reason why this thread is going off-topic, is that nobody cares what the low-life liar has to say about her DB. According to her I stole it for her opponents years ago but she didn’t have the decency to accuse me to my face. SIES! BTW! Where is this Francios guy? @Hardy , JB has a point , are you taking the blows for him to stand out as the unblemished? Did you offer the council a xx% discount to assist the people of Bitou in their time of crisis?

  25. As simple “yes” would have done thank you Pletty, pardon me, Mr. Brummer.

  26. Mr Mills. You make a fine stormtrooper for your candidate, this way you get to do all his dirty work for him and he stands above the hurly burly of politics that he has got into. 10/10 for trying and at the same time you’re doing a pretty fine job of diverting attention from Pouty Liz’s little blapsie for the DA. A quid pro quo for the favours that you got Memory to do for you? Sorry, I’m not going to rise to your bait, keep guessing, it keeps your mind occupied and prevents you from cooking up mischief.

    @Sceptic. Hallelujah, Brother. You said it, Brother.

  27. Brummer is just as corrupt as the people he is accusing of been corrupt. Johann if you are aware opf corruption just damn will go and report it to the police. Or are you intending using the information as a bargaining chip in the event of you getting elected on 5 Dec 2012?

  28. Please answer truthfully. Are you writing comments under the name “Pletty”? Just a “yes” or a “no” please. Think carefully Mr. Brummer.

  29. Thuli Madonsela. (Sunday Times Review. Page 5. 21/10/2012. “SO MANY QUESTIONS” Chris Barron.)

    “From time to time my conduct will be questioned, and it is fair that everyone’s conduct should be questioned, because if you exercise entrusted power then you should be answerable for that. But I do question the wild and malicious way these issues are being raised and the timing.”

    All public servants exercise entrusted power and we MUST continue to question them on their conduct. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens. But we must be careful not do make malicious and unfounded statements in the process without having the full facts and both sides of the story. It is not easy to stick to that and we are all guilty of letting our preconceived ideas and prejudices get the upper hand from time to time. Vigilence.

  30. @Hardy. I’m not going to spoil your day today. It can wait for tomorrow.

    @Sceptic. Boy! Do you have the right pseudonym or what. Hang ten, all will be revealed and then it will not be necessary for me to reply to you. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion, but I don’t blame you under the circumstances. Trudi Madonsela (sp?) summed the position of public servants up beautifully in an interview with the Sunday Times yesterday. I’ll find it and quote it to you for the special benefit of my politician collaeagues and government officials who perhaps did not get to read it. You are very right to be a sceptic and ask the hard questions.

  31. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

  32. Well well well. Now here is a fun scenario. We have an ex-councillor, who is also a hopeful in the coming by-election. One who builds his campaign on his history. His unchangeable stance against corruption in the Bitou Municipality. The whistle blower in his own words. Yet, he is willing to hide (not publish) documents that show over reaching by a service provider by the Municipality with public funds. How can this man be trusted? Still willing to make deals with the over reacher (for personal amusement – or benefit or whatever he wants to call it). Come on Mr. Brummer, as a councillor and citizen do you not have the duty to root out and expose this sort of thing? Or do you only do so when YOU can benefit from doing so?! So sad, in the beginning of this here post on this blog, I had hope for you and your integrity.

  33. Childish, Hardy. Childish.

    When you and your candidate met with me and Drewan in Oudtshoorn on Wednesday 10 October your candidate and I both gave an unequivocal undertaking that the loser of tommorrow’s debate will stand down. What exactly is it that you did not understand about our undertaking? What exactly is it that you do not understand about the purpose of the “primary” process we are subjecting ourselves to, to ask me a stupid question like that coached in those terms?

    You like to play games. So lets play a little game here. A game where you, Hardy Mills, for once also belly up to the table and place a nice big meaningful bet on the table. You have dealt this “Primary” bet on the table obo your candidate and you have been playing his hand for him without any personal risk to yourself.

    I put my bet on the table. I am going to give you another unequivocal YES. I’m going to reaffirm my bet. You have a resounding YES to that.OK? You got that now, YES, I WILL STAND BACK IF I LOSE TOMORROW. THAT WAS MY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO ALL OF YOU. IT IS THE VERY REASON FOR HOLDING A PRIMARY – THE LOSER STANDS BACK. I GAVE MY WORD ON THAT AND SO DID YOU AND YOUR CANDIDATE. I STICK TO THAT. ALWAYS.

    Now, let us have a little counter performance from your side.

    One of your accolytes has requested me to publish documents on certain issues. Obviously I do not have to publish everything I have but just enough to get the job done. On the one issue I have surplus documents which I had no intention of publishing but just to amuse ourselves (We have to have some fun you know. All work and no play and all that sort of stuff…) and it is obvious that you are feeling your oats today and apparently feel a need to play.

    So this is what I propose:

    Let us agree that YOU, HARDY MILLS, gives us all your written undertaking, that if those documents show that you, Hardy Mills, over reached in accounts rendered to Bitou Municipality, you will leave town and ride off into the sunset as I will have to do if I lose on Tuesday.

    There is only one question HARDY MILLS needs to answer me, and with a straight “yes” or a “no” please. Will he be honourable and go if he loses this little game?

    Time to put your money where your mouth is for once (or not). YES? or NO?

  34. That data base she has got on her high horse about, was collected by the people , hard working followers that she treated like rubbish, seems to me it has come back to bite her. She DAceived everyone and has ended up with a DAsaster!

  35. Dink die vroe sy en die Daceivers het die alleenreg tot die kiesers van wyk 2. You are very much mistaken Ms Mundell. This is a new South Africa where all people have the right to campaign and vote for whom the wish. Please go back to Rhodesia!

  36. Eina. I highly doubt whether Mr. Brummer would have alluded to being member of the DA. According to Ms. Mundell’s thoroughly thought through (I’m sure) email, Mr. Brummer clearly states in his email, that he is standing as an independent candidate. No confusion there now is there.

  37. Bereik die DA n nuwe laagtepunt in Bitou met Liz se brief “aan die stuur ???”
    Wonder wat Zille hieroor te se gaan he?

    Hou so aan DA, jul versterk net Johan Brummer se hand en bevestig die NOODSAAKLIKHEID dat n eerlike, bevoegde ervare ONAFHANKLIKE vir Bitou laaaaankal nodig was om die ANC/DA gemorsnes te kom skoonmaak!

    Dit eindig nie hier vir die DA nie. Dwarsdeur die land word nou ernstige vrae gevra oor die eerbaarheid van die DA in alle DA wyke !!! . Ek sou raai dis die begin van n tsunami wat landswyd ONAFHANKLIKES gaan ontketen, danksy die DA se aandadigheid, wat hul so aaaaaanhoudend onder die mat wil invee en gerieflikheidshalwe anner kant toe wil kyk !

    Dink nou net as ons vir Tony Leon kan kry om ook as ONAFHANKLIKE te staan of sy steun aan n ONAFHANKLIKE toe te se, daardie man het integriteit !

    Wil Theunsie, Wilmot, Selfie, Winde (X)ille en die hele kapabel dalk reageer. (Hoe lekker lag Trollip nou nie in sy mou nie !!!) Grawe n gat vir n ander en jy sien die bodem van daardie gat met jou eie “G”

    Sterkte DA, hier kom n ding, n moe…e ding !! DEMOKRASIE VERWELKOM DIT !!!!!!!

  38. There is only one question JOHANN BRUMMER needs to answer me, and with a straight “yes” or a “no” please. Will he stand down as promised if he loses tomorrow?

  39. Don’t let her distract you JB!! Deal with her and the DA later when the time is right. Let the old bully stew in her own juices for a while.

    And for you Madam. In case you have not noticed this is a Constitutional Democracy we live in. you obviously do not have a Constitution or you haven’t bothered to read it and quite clearly do not respect it, so let me make it easy for you.

    Freedom of expression
    16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes –
    (a) freedom of the press and other media;
    (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
    (c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
    (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

    And that is a basic Human Right in case you missed that too.


  40. Wat sê jy Liz? Dat ons nie na JB moet luister nie!? DIT van ‘n DEMOKRAAT, van die VOORSITTER van die DEMOKRATIESE ALLIANSIE op Plett!!? Ag nee SIES man. Dis die einde van die MY pad met die DEMOKRATIESE ALLIANSIE. Sies!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s